Standing Committee F

[Mr. Bowen Wells in the Chair]

Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

New Clause 3 - Right of Commissioner to comment on court decisions

`(1) Section 77 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (restrictions) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In subsection (1) the words ``, or has been determined by,'' are omitted.'.—[Mr. Win Griffiths.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made [this day], That the clause be read a Second time.

Bowen Wells: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking new clause 4—Right of access to institutions—
 `( ) In section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (examination of cases) before paragraph (a) insert— 
 (a1) requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies;.'.

Win Griffiths: I am delighted to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Wells.
 When the Committee adjourned, I was in full flow and about to deal with the commissioner's ability to initiate inquiries into matters of public concern, which, without the new clause, might be restricted. If, for example, the Secretary of State for Health had not decided to initiate an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Anna Climbie's tragic death, and if that death had occurred in Wales and the National Assembly had decided not to initiate an inquiry, under current legislation would the Children's Commissioner have been able to initiate an inquiry of his own, despite the case having already been subject to legal proceedings? I ask the Minister to reflect upon that, or whether section 77 of the Care Standards Act would apply in such a case. 
 A more diffuse issue relating to the commissioner's ability to inquire into matters where there may be related or other legal proceedings is exemplified by the inquiry into alleged child abuse in north Wales. In similar circumstances, would there be restrictions upon the commissioner's ability to inquire into all aspects of alleged abuse if one or more of the alleged abusers were subject to legal proceedings, of if they had been convicted of abuse within the scope of an inquiry, such as the Waterhouse inquiry? 
 The first recommendation of the Waterhouse inquiry was the appointment of a children's commissioner to act swiftly in dealing with allegations of child abuse. Would the Care Standards Act prevent the commissioner from making such inquiries on behalf of children if legal proceedings were under way connected with at least some of the people involved in the allegations of child abuse? 
 I have made inquiries with the Library. It is standard practice that ombudsmen cannot make inquiries in a large number of areas where options are already available for people to obtain redress. However, looking at the English local government's ombudsman's rules, there is a let-out in that, if there is a good reason why someone may not reasonably be expected to follow some other procedure laid down in law, he could still appeal to the ombudsman. Would that sort of let-out allow the Children's Commissioner to consider cases that have such legal and tribunal parameters, which would usually prevent him from carrying out an investigation? As in the case of the English local government ombudsman, could the Children's Commissioner consider whether that would be reasonable? 
 New clause 4 is designed to ensure that the Children's Commissioner has the right of entry into children's institutions and can obtain all the information that he requires from such institutions if he is conducting an inquiry relating to children. At present, under the Care Standards Act, he would be denied such access. Our amendment would add to section 74(3) of that Act the words: 
``(a1) requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies''. 
Does the Bill gives the commissioner that untrammelled right of entry and questioning, or are there some areas where the Government believe that that is not appropriate? If so, the issues raised by new clause 4 deserve to be examined in detail. 
 I anticipate that in virtually every case the commissioner would gain access to an institution caring for or involved with children and obtain the information from the people responsible without any trouble. But as the law stands, if the people in an institution want to be less than helpful, that right of access and right to information would not be granted because they would have the right to say, ``Sorry, you cannot come in here.'' The right that I am talking about is common to children's ombudsmen in other European countries. I hope that my hon. Friend will give a positive response on the issues that I have raised in new clauses 3 and 4.

Richard Livsey: It is good to see you here this afternoon, Mr. Wells.
 New clause 3 deals with the right of the commissioner to comment on court decisions. That that is not possible at the moment is incompatible with the fact that the commissioner is a children's champion. That is serious as such matters can adversely affect children in Wales. 
 New clause 4 deals with the right of access to institutions. There has been a serious development recently in the lower courts with a court ruling that children's advocates, who speak for children who are unable to speak for themselves, may not work with children who are subject to any legal proceedings. That is extremely serious. A child with learning difficulties might have misbehaved or even committed a minor offence. He might be unable to respond adequately in a court and yet he could not now have an advocate to assist him. In Wales, we do not have adequate resources to detain children. Children—youths—can end up in jail, where the commissioner may not be able to visit them. 
 I have a case in my constituency at the moment, which reflects what I have said. I cannot give any details, but it involves a young person with learning difficulties, who has found himself in a similar situation. I wish that the Children's Commissioner already had the powers contained in these two new clauses to strengthen his ability to assist in such a situation. 
 I wholeheartedly support new clauses 3 and 4. In certain circumstances, the commissioner needs to be able to comment on court decisions or to obtain access to institutions where children are detained, and may, because of their situation, be adversely affected by their detainment.

Elfyn Llwyd: I, too, welcome you to the chair this afternoon, Mr. Wells.
 Most of the arguments have already been put. I agree with the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). The wording of the clause it is quite peculiar. It states: 
``the Commissioner to enquire into or report on any matter so far as it is the subject of legal proceedings before, or has been determined by,''— 
the operative words in the amendment—``a court or tribunal.'' No one inside or outside the House would argue that the sub judice principle is not perfectly sensible and should not be upheld. However, there is no argument for precluding proper detailed comments on, and investigation into, matters that have already been decided. 
 The hon. Member for Bridgend asked whether the commissioner would have been prevented from commenting on the awful events dealt with in the Waterhouse report because many of those involved had been the subject of proceedings. A number of people in my chambers in Chester spent three or four years prosecuting those evil people. If—God forbid—such a tragedy were to be repeated, I am afraid that the commissioner would be gagged from taking any part in the proceedings, and that is astonishing. 
 The Waterhouse inquiry, conducted thoroughly by Sir Ronald Waterhouse and the other members of the panel, came to the firm conclusion early on in its recommendations that a commissioner was necessary. There is no mention in the recommendations of judicial proceedings, but, looking at the spirit of what was recommended, I am sure that the inquiry would not have wished the commissioner to have been denied access to decided cases. There are two good reasons for that. First under our present constitution, laws appertaining to children, and anyone else for that matter, are made by the House and by the National Assembly. Secondly, case law precedents develop the law, and decided cases are important. In some areas of family law, they are more important than the actual statute itself. Many decided cases of family law completely change the situation. I will not bore the Committee with examples, but family law can be quite radical. Laws can suddenly be changed on the strength of a Court of Appeal of a House of Lords decision. The commissioner will not be able to feed into that. 
 None of us want a repeat of the awful events that gave rise to the Waterhouse inquiry, but, human nature being what it is, and given what we read about some of these paedophile rings, there is more to come throughout Wales, I hope not to the same degree, but who knows? We will have a commissioner who will have to say, `I'm sorry, but I cannot comment on that, because one of the number has been prosecuted for a sexual offence.' That is not adequate, and will reflect badly on his office and all who work in it. It will hamper the commissioner in his duties, and I am concerned about that. 
 The hon. Member for Bridgend said that Children in Wales feels strongly about the matter, and he mentioned the various constituent bodies of Children in Wales. They have worked hard during the passage of the Bill, and previously in lobbying the Assembly, and they were the first to flag up the need for a commissioner. Please can we take heed of their expert advice and opinions? Those people are at the coalface, dealing with children, whether they be in care, in private accommodation or in the public sphere. They know what they are talking about, and they feel strongly about this. 
 We have previously mentioned the two unfortunate young children from America, who were allegedly bought. I feel awful using that word. There was the high profile murder of young Damilola Taylor and the Bulger case, involving the two boys, one of whose parents allegedly live in north Wales, not that that matters. We have high profile cases involving young children in various spheres, whether in the criminal or the civil courts, and it is ridiculous that the commissioner cannot make comments. Everyone and his brother will be making comments to the press, and it would be unacceptable if an invitation to the expert on children's welfare to comment were to meet with the response, `I am sorry, that does not come within my remit. I cannot comment on anything that has been decided in a court of law.' That will doubtless hamper the commissioner. We are not playing politics with this subject. The new clause has the support of the Liberal Democrats and it was tabled by the hon. Member for Bridgend and his colleagues. I fully support the new clause and I believe that the Government are wrong. I urge the Minister to rethink even at this late stage, and to go back and consider it further for another time. 
 Curiously, the first thing that the Northern Ireland commissioner did was to investigate the judicial process in the north of Ireland as it impinges on children. Why is there a difference between the way that that commissioner can act and the way in which the Children's Commissioner for Wales would be precluded from considering such an investigation? 
 New clause 4 is also important. It would ensure that the commissioner has the proper access to various bodies that he requires to carry out his work efficiently. We have heard that he will be entitled to make informal comments. If I hear that a Department or an official body has made informal comments, I often switch off immediately. Informal comments often mean ill-informed comments or `I am sorry, I do not really know half the story but I will give you an off-the-cuff informal comment about it', which would not usually be worth the paper it was written on. Are we seriously saying that the commissioner will have to be invited to comment informally on matters because he cannot gain the proper urgent access that he may require from time to time? 
 We know that abuse probably continues in some residential children's homes in Wales. It will be some of the people involved in that who will refuse to give access. Those people will be obstructive, and will pose the greatest risk to children. The paedophile rings that operate throughout the UK and beyond are very sophisticated. When they see that a commissioner can be denied proper access to an institution, access will be denied. I fear for the safety of children in those circumstances. Surely we can reconsider that matter. Both the new clauses have been well drafted and have reason and force behind them. I urge the Government to reconsider, even at this stage.

Julie Morgan: I do not wish to delay the Committee because all the relevant points have been clearly made, but I strongly support new clauses 3 and 4. It would be difficult if the commissioner could not comment on some of the high profile cases mentioned by hon. Members and it is important for the Minister to clarify the commissioner's position on such cases. New clause 4 also makes important proposals and, again, I should be grateful if the Minister would make it clear whether, under the Care Standards Act, the commissioner could have access to any institution that he felt he needed to enter. Would section 74(3)(b) of that Act, requiring persons who hold or are accountable for information to provide the commissioner with explanations or other assistance, cover that? That could allow the commissioner to have access to institutions. I should prefer the new clauses to be in the Bill, but, if the Minister is not minded to accept them, I should like him to clarify the issue.

David Hanson: Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Wells.
 Members on both sides of the Committee have made good points. I hope that I can clarify the Government's intentions on the issues raised in new clauses 3 and 4. New clause 3 would remove the specific restriction on the commissioner inquiring into or reporting on any matter that is to be determined by a court or tribunal. New clause 4 would give the commissioner a right of access to institutions that include children to whom part V of the Care Standards Act applies when investigating individual cases. I share the concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), and of Opposition Members, about the commissioner's investigations and agree that they should not be unreasonably restricted. I genuinely hope that my explanation will enable hon. Members to realise that we will be able to meet the spirit of the new clauses without incorporating them into the Bill. 
 There are many precedents for having restrictions on inquiring into or reporting on issues that have been determined by a court or tribunal. Courts and tribunals determine specific issues and it is not for the commissioner to try to reopen their determinations. That means in practice that, while the commissioner would not usually comment upon or investigate matters that are sub judice, he would not be prevented from commenting informally on the outcome of court cases or from reporting on related issues within his jurisdiction, such as the performance of social service authorities which have dealt with a case. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend mentioned the case of Anna Climbie. If that case had occurred in Wales, the commissioner would not have investigated the specific issue that was before the court—the guilt or innocence of those charged with the crimes that eventually resulted in the court case. It is not the commissioner's role to decide guilt or innocence, second-guess a jury, or become involved in the legal process. Once the court has reached its verdict, the commissioner can look at the wider issues arising from the verdict. 
 If that case had occurred in my authority in Flintshire, north Wales, the commissioner would not have been able to examine guilt or innocence, but, once the verdict had been received, the commissioner could have considered whether Flintshire county council social services had acted properly in the run-up to the case. There may have been general lessons about child care protection matters to learn from the case, which he might have wished to investigate with colleagues from the social services inspectorate, or local government. Nothing in the Bill precludes the commissioner from considering the consequences of a particular verdict, but it would be totally inappropriate for a commissioner to consider a case during the course of a trial.

Andrew Rowe: During that sad case, there was a moment when one of the social workers wanted to blow the whistle on what was happening. Had the commissioner been in existence, and the social worker had blown the whistle to the commissioner, presumably the commissioner could have intervened to protect the child against the incompetent bureaucratic processes that had allowed her to be abused.

David Hanson: Presumably, if the commissioner had received a whistle blowing comment from a social worker, he would be able to give evidence, if called upon by the court, which is entirely different from making comments during the course of the trial. The commissioner's role does not include second-guessing the jury, but it does include looking at the consequences, post-verdict.

Win Griffiths: I understand that the commissioner cannot do anything directly relating to the verdict, and I fully support that, but, to improve the system, when the case is over, the commissioner could pore over all the evidence, set-up an inquiry of his own, and call people to clarify matters.

David Hanson: There are subtle but important differences. The commissioner should not comment during a court case, unless he is called to give evidence, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent said, because information was passed to him that led to the court case. The commissioner should not comment as a matter of course. He would not go to the newspapers with his views on issues in order to influence the verdict. Once the verdict is given, the commissioner is free to examine the consequences of that decision.
 When X has been found guilty of a crime, the commissioner can examine the agencies involved to see whether there are lessons to be learned. The commissioner cannot—this is a subtle but important difference—re-visit the verdict. Therefore, if a jury finds a person innocent, the commissioner cannot take further evidence and, as a result, say that X should have been found guilty. Those are important roles in terms of the legal system, and those roles are defined.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that the Minister is right, as no one in his right mind would seek to comment on the jury's verdict. Without having tried the case and heard all the evidence, such comment would be bound to be somewhat specious.
 Will the Minister give an example of a situation that would be outwith the commissioner's remit. I will read the section again. It states: 
 ``This Part does not authorise the Commissioner to enquire into or report on any matter so far as it is the subject of legal proceedings before, or has been determined by, a court or tribunal.'' 
Presumably, that is included for a reason. Without referring to the social services argument—we fully understand that social services will be part of the Commissioner's remit—can the Minister give an example of where that section would come into play and would preclude comment?

David Hanson: I thought I had done that; I apologise if it was not clear. The commissioner could be called to give evidence, as in the case sited by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, if he had been involved in determining part of the evidence on the case. However, he could not comment on the case as a general principle while it was being considered. He could not try to influence the verdict in that general sense. Once the verdict has been given, he cannot reopen it, but he can look at the consequences of the case for the agencies that are involved in child protection or welfare issues generally. I cannot give specific examples of how that would work, but I hope that the general boundary lines are clear.

Andrew Rowe: I have been torn between a Select Committee hearing and this Committee and I apologise for not having been at the early part of the debate. I entirely agree with what the Minister said, but my point was different from the one that he raised. I am seeking an assurance that, if a whistleblower were to speak to the commissioner before any question of legal proceedings arose, the commissioner would, under the Care Standards Act, have the power to look into the workings of the authority about which the whistleblower was complaining. That would have prevented the fatal injuries.

David Hanson: Absolutely. I can give a categorical assurance that that is one of the central tenets of the commissioner's role.
 The clarification that I am trying to provide relates to the period of the court case. It is not appropriate for the commissioner to comment upon a court case where he has not been involved in the compilation of evidence, nor is it part of his role to comment on a verdict. It is the commissioner's role to examine the implications for public service and childhood protection issues. I do not think that I can make that any clearer.

Elfyn Llwyd: It is not part of my function to delay the Committee but I cannot understand how what the Minister has said is on all fours with the words
``or has been determined by'' 
``Has been determined by'' means a case has been decided by a court or tribunal. The commissioner, therefore, is not authorised to inquire or report on any matter because it has been the subject of legal proceedings that have ``been determined''. I am sorry to put it that way, but it is completely different from what the Minister is saying.

David Hanson: I can only give my interpretation of the Government's thinking on the issue. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Cardiff, North and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

Julie Morgan: Can the Minister clarify the statement in section 77(1) where it says that the commissioner cannot
``enquire into or report on any matter'' 
so far as it has been determined by legal proceedings? Is the Minister saying that the commissioner will be able to comment on the local authority procedures that may have caused this to happen, or anything of that nature? That is the key point. As it is written, it looks as if he would not be able to comment on any of surrounding issues. The Act says ``on any matter''.

David Hanson: My interpretation—and I am speaking on behalf of the Government—is that the commissioner should be able to comment on the implications of the case for the agencies for which he has jurisdiction. I hope that that is the clarification that my hon. Friends have sought in tabling the amendment. sought. That has always been the Government's interpretation of this particular aspect of the legislation.

Nigel Evans: There does seem to be confusion between the wording in the Bill and the Government's intentions. We agree with the Minister and would like to see what he said in the Bill. However, what we see in the Bill is not, in our interpretation, the same. When the Bill passes to the other place, the Government will have an opportunity to examine the wording of the clause again.

David Hanson: I would like to reflect further on what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have made the Government's intentions clear. Hon. Members still have their views, but I am trying to define the Government's understanding.

Richard Livsey: Will the Minister reconsider my point about advocacy? Young people of a low IQ who cannot express themselves or communicate adequately are denied assistance in court. Could they not have some form of counselling because after the court's decision, some of these people may be put in jail or a detention centre in inappropriate circumstances? That is the court's decision. Without an advocate, the right result is sometimes not achieved. I do not expect an immediate answer from the Minister, but would he raise that matter with his colleagues? It is an important point.

David Hanson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I cannot provide an immediate answer, but I will reflect further. If necessary, we can correspond on the issues.

Win Griffiths: I mentioned earlier that I had been in touch with the Library to examine the powers of the ombudsman in general and to ascertain what happened in the past. The same issue came up when the Care Standards Bill was in Committee. I was not a member of that Committee and do not know whether anyone present here was—

David Hanson: I was.

Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend can answer my point, then. To the best of my knowledge, no major debate of this matter took place in that Committee. It may have come to the fore because of subsequent concerns. I accept the Minister's argument about why the commissioner cannot examine the verdict, only the services responsible for providing the care. A cast-iron guarantee would make me happy with the outcome of the debate.

David Hanson: I was a member of the Committee considering the Care Standards Bill last June. I was also a member of the Committees considering the Local Government Bill and the Learning and Skills Bill at the same time. I spent most of last June flitting between three Committee Rooms to speak on matters relating to those Bills. I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I cannot recall in exact detail what was debated then.
 I hope that my explanation of the commissioner's role and of his responsibility for matters going before a court will meet my hon. Friend's request for clarification and assurance. I know that he has liaised with many children's groups outside this House; I have met them, too, and given them the same explanation prior to this Committee stage. I hope that my hon. Friend and those groups will consider the implications of what I have said, and reflect on the matter when it goes to another place, as it will very shortly. I am confident that what I have said today will allow the commissioner a positive role in those areas. 
 On the issue of physical access to institutions, the Bill reflects the disclosure arrangements for other ombudsmen and commissioner-type officers in the United Kingdom, who have no specific powers of physical access to institutions that come under their jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Bill extends the right to information, explanations and assistance under the Care Standards Act 2000, to ensure that the commissioner's investigations will be as effective as possible. 
 The Assembly will be able to make regulations that enable the commissioner to require information to be provided in respect of the bodies that will be subject to the function of reviewing and monitoring arrangements for dealing with complaints for whistle blowing and advocacy. The regulations made by the Assembly will give the commissioner strong powers to require that information, explanations and assistance be provided in respect of the relevant bodies when the commissioner examines individual cases. The new powers that we have given, both under the Care Standards Act last year and under the Bill today, will allow the commissioner to be able to demand information on a range of issues that he is not able to demand under the Care Standards Act. 
 The extra powers enhancing the commissioner's responsibilities will be of particular importance to cover the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend. The power of access in particular is more appropriate for bodies that have direct inspection powers, such as the proposed care standards inspectorate for Wales. I confirm that the care standard inspectorate will have the right of access to premises to undertake direct investigations, as that is in the nature of its roles and responsibilities as distinct from those of the commissioner. 
 I am confident that the commissioner will want to establish close working relationships with the inspectorate, and that he will give it advice and support on issues relating to inspections that that it has undertaken and reports it wants to produce. However, there is definite distinction between the two roles. The commissioner will have the power to ask for papers and information and make demands on organisations accordingly; the new care standards inspectorate for Wales will be able to make visits to premises and to undertake that type of inspection visit, because that is in the nature of its responsibilities. The two roles are distinct and both will enhance the protection of children.

Julie Morgan: I accept that there are two distinct roles, but we all know that inspectors do not always get it right, so it is desirable that the commissioner has the right of access to institutions. Will the Minister agree orally, now, or will he make appropriate provision in the Bill? We have had so many scandals and tragedies in institutions in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom that it seems unfortunate that we do not spell out such a provision in the Bill.

David Hanson: I hope that can reassure my hon. Friend. There are two distinct roles: the care standards inspectorate is responsible for inspection and has the right of access to premises; that is its distinct role, whereas the Children's Commissioner is responsible for broad areas. For example, if the care standards inspectorate chooses not to make an inspection, the Children's Commissioner can, using his jurisdiction as the person responsible for such issues, comment and report on that failure to carry out an inspection; he can also encourage the carrying out of inspections. However, there is a distinct difference between the day-to-day responsibilities of the inspectorate and the commissioner. Although my hon. Friend's probing amendment would allow the commissioner to have that right of access, it is, in fact, part of the general division of labour in terms of child protection.

Win Griffiths: I appreciate everything that the Minister is saying about the differing roles of the inspectorate and the commissioner, but let us take a hypothetical case in which the failure lay with the inspectorate to carry out their inspection of a children's institution properly; and there was a cosy relationship between the head of the institution and the inspector. Let us say that someone blew the whistle on what was going on, with the result that the commissioner wanted to investigate, visit the institution and question the staff to get to the bottom of the whole affair. Does the Bill as it stands give the commissioner untrammelled access, or could the head of the institution say ``Sorry, you're not coming into my place. That's the inspectorate's job and they have been and I do not want you here.''? Can the Minister assure us that, either because the Bill does not prevent the commissioner from doing that, or because the National Assembly could make regulations giving him that power, that all would be well if the commissioner were to act in the hypothetical circumstances I have described?

David Hanson: The commissioner, as I said earlier, will be able to require information to be provided in respect of bodies, he will have powers of general review and he will be able to ask for information about those bodies, the care standards inspectorate and the institution that may be being inspected, but he could not undertake a direct visit for the reasons that I have stated: there is a division of responsibility. However, the commissioner could report on the care standards inspectorate's failure to act and he could indicate to the Assembly his concern following the receipt of information about the inspectorate's failure to act on a particular case.
 There are different and distinct responsibilities. The commissioner has overarching responsibility to review the level of services and type of service provision, whereas the job of the care standards inspectorate is to inspect. I do not know whether that satisfies my hon. Friend, but that is the view shared by the Government and the Assembly those roles and responsibilities. 
 We have fully discussed both of the amendments. I have tried to explain the Government's view on core aspects, I hope that the Committee is satisfied that the commissioner will have a responsibility to look at the implications of cases. I also hope that I have satisfied the Committee on the question of powers of access. There are mechanisms in place to ensure access.

Elfyn Llwyd: I appreciate the fact that the Minister is taking time to deal with these points, but is it not illogical that an inspector has a statutory power to enter premises, but the commissioner—the guardian, the advocate at the top of the tree—is not allowed to gain access in any particular circumstances? I am not saying that he would often want to have access, but there might be occasions on which the inspector has been obstructed, or the case is a high-profile, very bad one in which, even for the purposes of making a public announcement later on, it would be better if the commissioner could say that he had visited with inspectors. None the less, the commissioner is precluded from doing that, whereas inspectors have the statutory duty and power to do so. That does not make much sense. I am not blaming the Minister, but there appears to be a vacuum.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman should always blame the Minister, because Ministers are ultimately responsible for determining the policy and the line of Government thinking.

Elfyn Llwyd: In that case, I do blame the Minister.

David Hanson: I shall accept the blame. The debate boils down to core functions and their duplication. The purpose of the care standards inspectorate is to inspect and that of the Children's Commissioner to oversee and ensure that lessons are learned, good practices are disseminated and issues arising from inspection reports are considered. The two roles are not contradictory, but I shall reflect on what has been said. I hope that that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.

Win Griffiths: We have considered new clauses 3 and 4 in detail, but some anxiety about access remains. I am not revealing any secrets, but I read the social services inspectorate reports when I was the Welsh Office Minister responsible for such matters. The questions most often asked during discussions on those reports with senior staff in the Welsh Office were about the physical location—we asked ``Where was this or that located?'' in response to comments made by the social services inspectorate.
 In a case in which the inspectorate is accused of not doing its job properly, the commissioner must be able to visit premises, although I appreciate that he can get lots of information about premises in which problems are alleged to have occurred. For now, however, as this is our first run at such an important issue and there will be opportunities to revisit the matter on Report and in another place, I ask the Minister to reconsider whether the access issue can be resolved while avoiding the potential problems of duplication of function. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5 - Consultation by the National Assembly for Wales

`In section 2(1)(b) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 (Central Authorities and accredited bodies) after ``by the National Assembly for Wales'' there shall be inserted ``, after consultation with the Children's Commissioner for Wales''.'.—[Mr. Walter.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Robert Walter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Bowen Wells: With this we may take new clause 6—Consultation by the Secretary of State—
 `In section 16(1) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 (Devolution) after the third ``the'', for the words ``National Assembly for Wales'' there shall be substituted ``Children's Commissioner for Wales.``.

Robert Walter: The Committee has spent a lot of time considering the commissioner's powers with regard to institutions, but much less discussing fostering and adoption. The new clauses relate largely to adoption and to enhancing the commissioner's powers in that respect. They touch on the case that is at the forefront of our minds, although I do not want to embarrass the Minister, who has mentioned that the parents in that adoption case are his constituents and that his wife is chairman of the social services committee dealing with it.
 We spent a lot of time considering amendments to the Care Standards Act 2000; the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 is also relevant. I want to give the commissioner a key role in setting policy on international adoption procedures. The Act incorporates the 1993 Hague convention into UK law, but the Government have so far failed to implement the Act, which has left the way open for the case that took place in north Wales. 
 Our amendments would give the commissioner responsibility for advising the Government on the Act's implementation in Wales. It may help if I deal with the provenance of the two new clauses. Clause 1 relates to section 78 of the Care Standards Act 2000 and says: 
 ``This Part applies to a child . . .to or in respect of whom regulated children's services in Wales are provided.`` 
Section 78(2) of the 2000 Act says: 
 ``In this Part, [odq]regulated children's services in Wales'' means . . . services provided by local authorities in Wales in the exercise of relevant adoption functions or relevant fostering functions''. 
We seek to amend two sections in the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. Section 2 deals with central authorities and accredited bodies, and subsection (1) says: 
 ``The functions under the Convention of the Central Authority are to be discharged— 
 (a) separately in relation to England and Scotland by the Secretary of State; and 
 (b) in relation to Wales by the National Assembly for Wales.`` 
New clause 5 would amend section 2(1)(b) and make it say ``by the National Assembly for Wales, after consultation with the Children's Commissioner for Wales.'' 
 Section 16(1) of the 1999 Act says: 
 ``Any function of the Secretary of State under section 1 or 18(3), or section 17 or 56A of the 1976 Act, is exercisable only after consultation with the National Assembly for Wales. 
New clause 6 would streamline that procedure. If the Secretary of State—in this case the Secretary of State for Health—must consult the National Assembly, which then has to consult the commissioner, that important aspect may need short-circuiting. I do not want to take the National Assembly out of the loop, but the person charged with looking after such matters on behalf of the National Assembly and the people of Wales is the Children's Commissioner. We seek to delete the words ``National Assembly for Wales'' and insert ``Children's Commissioner for Wales.'' 
 The new clauses would beef up the powers of the Children's Commissioner when dealing with international adoptions and particularly the sort of case that we have seen in north Wales. I remind the Committee that the Government signed the convention in 1993, but have not yet implemented it. In schedule 1 to the 1999 Act, the fourth statement in the convention says: 
 ``The States signatory to the present Convention . . . Convinced of the necessity to take measures to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights, and to prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in, children''. 
That is exactly what most hon. Members want to prevent. We have seen evidence of that practice in the case in north Wales. 
 The Government have so far failed to implement the Act. The Bill could give the Children's Commissioner power as an advocate for children and their rights, including those who are being adopted. If we as Members of Parliament cannot persuade the Government that they should implement that convention, perhaps by giving the Children's Commissioner for Wales a power as an advocate for children—including those who are being adopted—and children's rights, we will enable the commissioner to convince them to implement both the 1993 Hague convention and an Act that was passed by the House two years ago, which would have prevented what I can only describe as the obscene internet procedures that have recently taken place. 
 The new clauses would enhance the role of the Children's Commissioner and that of parents in the safe adoption of children across frontiers. They would have enabled the Flintshire social services committee to oversee the home study report in the case of the Kilshaws. That report could have been lodged with the Secretary of State for Health and with the court in the United States, with the result that the adoption, if it were ultimately approved, would have been made with the approval of all the authorities involved. However, it was not. I should prefer that and similar adoptions to have approval and that is why I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

Raymond Powell: We must be careful when dealing with new procedures for the adoption of children. In the past two years, I have seen great problems when adoptions are allowed without full investigation of people who are adopting children throughout the country, particularly in Wales. We must have provisions and people who are able to ensure that a proper inspection takes place of the homes where those children are going to live and the background of the people who want to adopt.
 More often than not, we have the problem of trying to intervene in cases that have already been decided. Once the decisions have been taken and the children have been adopted, we face great difficulty. It is high time we had far stricter laws on and greater resources going into adoption. Many children are seeking adoption but are not finding homes because we do not have the inspectors to conduct the research that is necessary before adoption can take place. However, I appeal to the Committee not to take a quick decision on the suggestions that have been made until we have examined in more detail the safeguards that we should impose in respect of adoption.

David Hanson: I am grateful for the comments from the hon. Member for Dorset, North. For the record and for the sake of clarity, I should declare again two interests that are connected with matters that he has raised: first, Mr. and Mrs. Kilshaw are my constituents; secondly, my wife, Councillor Margaret Hanson, is chair of Flintshire county council social services committee and is dealing with that case.
 The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that one of the Assembly's key functions will be to act as a central authority for the purposes of the 1993 Hague convention on the protection of children and co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption. New clause 5 would impose upon the Assembly an obligation to consult the commissioner in respect of the discharge of its responsibilities as the central authority in Wales for the purposes of that convention. 
 Continuing the sympathetic approach that I have tried to take in Committee, let me say that I have no problem with the commissioner having a view on how the assembly exercises that function. Under clause 3, he already has the power to review the exercise of all of the assembly's functions: he will be able to report on the outcome of the reviews and will be able to take a primary role in influencing and informing the way in which the Assembly exercises its functions in respect of adoption and the convention. 
 Where the hon. Gentleman and I differ, if we differ at all, is that I do not believe that it is sensible to confuse the commissioner's roles by making him a formal consultee on the discharge of functions that he could subsequently review. Clause 3 gives the commissioner the power to examine all those issues accordingly. The new clause would highlight the commissioner's adoption role, over and above many other roles that he will have, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that. That is not to deny the necessity for the commissioner to take a strong interest in adoption issues; it is simply that the commissioner will and should have a range of roles. His involvement in adoption issues will simply be one of many areas on which he can comment. 
 In order, I hope, to help the hon. Member for North Dorset, I shall give the Government's view on the important issue that he raised of the Hague convention and its implementation. He will agree that that is a complex area of legislation and that it is vital to ensure that the provisions properly protect the interests of children in the United Kingdom. Section 14 of the 1999 Act, which inserts a new provision in the Adoption Act 1976, makes it an offence to bring a child into England and Wales for the purposes of adoption unless requirements prescribed in regulations have been complied with. The Government intend to enact the provision in advance of the main body of the 1999 Act to tighten controls over the assessment procedure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will consult on the draft regulations shortly. I understand that the Assembly will also be involved in that consultation. I hope that that covers new clause 5, but I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments in due course. I emphasise that the new clause would elevate the adoption issue above many of the other issues with which the Children's Commissioner will have to deal. 
 New clause 6 would remove the National Assembly's statutory right to be formally consulted on the implementation of the 1999 Act. I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled the new clause; obviously he wants to beef up, in his words, the commissioner's role on those issues. However, new clause 6 would remove the right of formal consultation from the Assembly and vest it in the commissioner, and that would be inappropriate, for several reasons. As I have tried to explain during the course of the Bill, the commissioner should be independent of the Assembly—he is a creature of the Assembly, funded by the Assembly, but is independent of the Assembly. The Assembly and the commissioner may take different views on a particular issue, which is right and proper. It is certainly right for the Assembly to hold strong views on such issues, but if we accepted new clause 6, the independent Children's Commissioner could have a view on an issue while the elected National Assembly did not. That is an important point. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

David Hanson: As I was saying before the Division, the commissioner has significant powers under clause 3, which will allow him to review the exercise of the Assembly's functions in relation to a range of issues, particularly that of adoption and the relevant adoption legislation.
 Clause 3 is significant. Although I accept what the hon. Member for North Dorset has said, I do not believe that we should lift adoption out of the range of other issues that are considered by the commissioner. He will have the power under the clause to exercise wide-ranging reviews of the Assembly's functions as the central authority. Before the Division I talked about new clause 5, the Assembly and the commissioner's responsibilities for a general review of functions under clause 3. I also talked about new clause 6, which I believe would replace the Assembly's role with the commissioner's role and deny the Assembly a view of some important issues. I hope that the hon. Member for Dorset North will reflect on those comments, and for the last time in this Committee stage, I ask him to consider withdrawing the motion and new clause.

Robert Walter: I do not wish to be pedantic, but just for the record I should say that the name of my constituency is North Dorset. I was disappointed that the Minister told us that the Government did intend to implement the Hague convention, which was signed in 1993. The Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act received Royal Assent on 27 July 1999, and still it has not been implemented. It is a matter of some concern that that is still the case. Part of my reason for tabling these amendments was to make the Children's Commissioner a champion of children's rights so that he can intervene for victims of inter-country adoptions that are carried out through dubious processes.
 I do not necessarily accept everything the Minister said, particularly with regard to new clause 6 and putting the Commissioner into a consultation role rather than an executive role. I would have thought it appropriate for the commissioner to be the consultee for Wales. It would enhance, not only the commissioner but, the National Assembly, if the commissioner's role was established in legislation with regard to inter-country aspects when the Assembly was acting as the central authority. It seems that the Minister is not minded to accept my new clauses, despite the sympathy that I sensed from him and from his hon. Friend Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell). I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule agreed to.

Richard Livsey: On a point of order, Mr. Wells. May I take this opportunity to thank you and Mr. Jones for your chairmanship and for way in which the Committee has been conducted? I congratulate those who have contributed to the Bill or to its proceedings. There are some issues to which we shall return later. If we are to have a children's champion, we must address the question of powers and children's human rights. If there are non-devolved matters, that is clearly a question to which we shall have to return.
 Finally, I offer my best wishes to the National Assembly for Wales and my thanks to all those groups of children's lobbyists who have assisted the Committee so much.

Nigel Evans: Further to that point of order, I am sure that it will not go unnoticed that in the five sittings of the Committee there has not been one Division. That does not mean there has been unanimity on the Bill, but there has been unanimity of purpose, which is to establish a Children's Commissioner for Wales with proper and effective powers. I am sure that is true of all parties represented here today. Just because we did not vote, does not mean there were no differences between us—indeed, there have been lengthy discussions to which hon. Members on both sides have contributed on how to improve the Bill. On Report and Third Reading and during the Bill's passage through the House of Lords, we shall continue to try to improve the legislation. Time is of the essence, and I am delighted we have been able to do our job in the five sittings allotted to us. We wish the Bill well on its journey.
 I, too, would like to thank all the children's charities and others who have made representations to us and the National Assembly of Wales during consideration of the Bill. I thank you, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Jones for the way in which you have chaired our sittings—your guidance has been invaluable.

David Hanson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Wells. I had intended to wait until you put the Question before making my remarks, but as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has raised his point of order, I shall do so now.
 This is the 18th Bill on which I have had the pleasure of serving during my time in the House, Mr. Well but it is the first time I have ever gone through a Bill without voting, which is an indication of the cross-party support for the Bill and for the Government's proposals. I understand that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), has been through two Bills without voting. Obviously, he brings an air of consensus to Committee proceedings, unlike previous Whips I have served under. I confess that when I was a Whip, I enjoyed forcing points on an issue, just to make a point. 
 I thank you, Mr. Wells, for your efforts in the sittings that you have chaired, and your colleague, Mr. Jones, who as well as being your co-Chairman is my constituency next-door-neighbour. I should also like to place on record my thanks to the Clerk, to parliamentary counsel, to my colleagues from the police for sitting through the Committee on numerous occasions and helping us during our proceedings, to the Hansard reporters, to officials from the Wales Office who are present today and those from the National Assembly who are on secondment to the Wales Office, and to the Doorkeepers for the service they have provided. 
 I also thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their support and constructive comments. From the Opposition Benches, the hon. Members for North Dorset and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) have been constructive in their comments, as have the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Brecon and Radnorshire. Not least, I thank my hon. Friends, both those who have offered constructive contributions and those who have indulged the Committee with their silence, for their fulsome and wholesome support at all times. It is a pleasure to know that many hon. Members are so keen on Government proposals that they do not need to reinforce their feelings with words, but can instead rely on the Minister to represent the Government's interests. 
 I also thank the many children's groups who have been involved in lobbying the Committee. It is right and proper that we explore the issues that they have raised. Finally, I pay tribute to National Assembly for its committee work, and to Jane Hutt, the Minister with responsibility for health and children's affairs in the National Assembly. 
 I am confident that, although it has not been amended in Committee, we have a Bill that will go to another place with the benefit of constructive criticism and Government explanations. In due course, when the Bill has been through Report stage and Third Reading, we shall have legislation of which the House and the National Assembly can be proud.

Elfyn Llwyd: Further to that point of order, Mr Wells. I add my gratitude to you and Mr. Jones for chairing our proceedings so ably. Most of our time in Committee has been spent in what has been described as grown-up debate. We have not changed much, but we have narrowed down three or four main areas of contention. Two or three remain for another place to address in more detail. I am confident that the Minister will report to his colleagues on the main areas for attention and I hope that there will be some movement in another place.
 I add my thanks to the children's groups who have lobbied and briefed us so well. I think in particular of Children in Wales, which has acted as an umbrella group for all the interested parties. A lot of hard work has been done. Today's proceedings are a tribute to Children in Wales, who, back in the early 1990s, pointed out the need for a Children's Commissioner for Wales. That is now to become a reality, subject to those amendments that were argued for, some of which I hope will be put into effect in the other place. 
 There has been unanimity on many aspects of the Bill. There is a consensus and our debate from beginning to end has been a sensible one. I hope that it has also been fruitful, not for us as parliamentarians, but for the young children of Wales who are the future of that country.

Richard Livsey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Wells. It would be remiss of us not to thank the Minister for his good humour in taking this Bill through Committee.

Bowen Wells: I thank all those who have put spurious points of order to me on matters that are not really my concern. I am grateful to receive them, however, particularly as they have been expressed in such a gracious and good-humoured way. I will certainly convey them to my co-Chairman, Mr. Jones. I commend the Committee for its good-tempered and serious debates. It does the reputation of the Houses of Parliament a great deal of good when matters of such importance are discussed in such a responsible manner.
 Following the changes in our procedure, I have new words to say. Our proceedings are now concluded. 
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
Committee rose at seven minutes past Six o'clock.